'j\ Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 1 of 21 ti 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ERICA HEIN AR 

4354 BERMUDA STREET 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19 124, 

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 05-1565 

v. 

OSCAR MARTINEZ (Badge #8857) 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

8TH and RACE STREETS 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 1910, 

NORBERT0 CAPPAS (Badge#I287) 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

8TH and RACE STREETS 

PHILADELPHIA, PA I91 0, 

EDWARD MARKOWSKl (Badge#6917) : 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

8TH and RACE STREETS 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 1910, 

JOHN LIVINGSONE (Badge#2596) 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

8TH and RACE STREETS 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19 10, 

TODD OANDASAN (Badge# 2774) 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

8TH and RACE STREETS 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 1910, 

MICkIUvF t. KUIYL, Clerk 

6Y L Z/c/' Dep. Clera 

JOHN DOE OFFICER 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT 

8TH and RACE STREETS 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 1910 

and 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 2 of 21 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

CITY HALL 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Defendants. : AMENDED COMPLAINT 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This action arises under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. 

Constitution as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983 and several state law claims. The court has jurisdiction 

over the federal law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 and pendant and ancillary 

jurisdiction over the state law claims. This action concerns the Plaintiffs false arrest, unlawful 

detention and the sexual misconduct and abuse perpetrated against the Plaintiff by the Defendants. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 139 l(b) because the cause of action upon which 

the complaint is based arose in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which is in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania. - 

COMPLAINT 

3. The Plaintiff in this matter, Erica Hejnar, is an individual and citizen of 

the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, residing therein at 4354 Bermuda Street, Philadelphia, PA 

19124. 

4. The Defendant in this matter is Oscar Martinez ("Martinez") (Badge #8857), an 

officer in the City of Philadelphia Police Department. 

5. The Defendant in this matter is Norberto Cappas ("Cappas") (Badge #1287), an 

officer in the City of Philadelphia Police Department 

6. The Defendant in this matter is Edward Markowski ("Markowski") (Badge#6917), 

an officer in the City of Philadelphia Police Department 

7. The Defendant in this matter is John Livingstone ("Livingstone") (Badge #2596), 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 0111912006 Page 3 of 21 

an oficer in the City of Philadelphia Police Department. 

8. The Defendant in this matter is Todd Oandasan ("Oandasan") (Badge #2774), 

an o5cer in the City of Philadelphia Police Department. 

9. The Defendant in this matter is John Doe (Badge #2774), an officer in the City of 

Philadebhia Police Department. 

10. The Defendant in this matter is the City of Philadebhia. 

BACKGROUND 

I I. On the evening of September 3,2003, at approximately 7:00 PM, the Plaintiff 

and a female friend, Catherine Pennypacker ("Pennypacker") were walking along the 2300 block 

of North Front Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania attempting to locate an acquaintance of 

Pennypacker's who had just run off with some of her money. 

12. In the process of looking for said acquaintance, Pennypacker asked a gentleman 

standing on the street if he had seen anyone fitting the acquaintance's description run by. When 

the gentleman answered that he had not, the Plaintiff and Pennypacker continued to walk down 

the block. 

13. Neither the Plaintiff nor Pennypacker knew this gentleman and the Plainitff did not 

exchange any words with him. In fact, the Plaintiff stood on the opposite side of the street while 

Pennypacker spoke to the gentleman. 

14. Neither the Plaintiff nor Pennypacker gave anything to the gentleman, nor did they 

receive or accept anything ffom him. 

15. At this time: Defendants Martinez, Cappas, Markowski, Livingstone and 

Oandasan, o5cers in the City of Philadelphia Police Department working together in the area on 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 4 of 21 

a plains clothes narcotics unit, were conducting a surveillance operation targeting the gentleman 

Pennypacker approached for help. 

16. From his surveillance post on the third floor of a school located at 

Howard and York Streets, Defendant Oandasan observed Pennypacker speak to the gentleman 

and then walk away with the Plaintiff. 

17. Despite not having witnessed any hand to hand exchanges occur between 

Pennypacker, the Plaintiff and the surveillance target, Defendant Oandasan relayed a flash 

description of Pennypacker and the Plaintiff to Defendants Martinez, Cappas, Markowski and 

Livingstone on the ground and told them to effect a stop on the two women. 

18. At this point, the Plaintiff and Pennypacker had neither engaged in criminal 

activity, nor taken any actions which would raise reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was 

afoot. 

19. Defendants Markowski, Cappas and Livingstone immediately began to follow the 

Plaintiffand Pennypacker east on York street and south on Front street where they stopped and 

handcuffed both women halfway to Front and Dauphin streets. 

20. The Defendants proceeded to conduct a frisk search of the Plaintiff and 

Pennypacker and asked them where the drugs were. Completely taken by surprise, the Plaintiff 

and Pennypacker strongly protested that they did not have any drugs. 

21. After a frisk search of the Plaintiff and Pennypacker failed to uncover any 

contraband, the Defendants, who had beenjoined by their supervisor, Martinez, by this time, 

called a female officer to the scene to conduct a more thorough search of the Plaintiffand 

Pennypacker. 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 4 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 5 of 21 

22. Officer Annamae Law (Badge#2734) ("Law") responded to the scene a few 

minutes later along with her partner, Joseph Goodwin (Badge#5643) ("Goodwin"). Off~cer Law 

searched the bras and underwear of the Plaintiff and Pennqpacker but she also failed to uncover 

any contraband. 

23. Despite not having observed any hand to hand exchanges occur between the 

Plainti% Pennypacker and the surveillance target, and despite two searches of the persons of the 

Plaintiff and Pennpacker having failed to uncover any contraband, Defendant Martinez, without 

probable cause for arrest, ordered Law and Goodwin to transport the Plaintiffand Pe~ypacker to 

the 26Ih District Police Precinct so that a third and more intmsive search could be conducted on 

the two women. 

24. Defendant Martinez instructed Law that the Plaintiff and Pennypacker should be 

released ifthey did not have any warrants and ifa search failed to uncover any contraband. 

25. At no time did any of the Defendants secure or attempt to secure an arrest or 

search warrant for the Plaintiffor Pe~ypacker. 

26. Once they arrived at the 26h District precinct, Law retrieved the cell block keys 

from the turnkey's desk in the operations room and escorted the Plaintiff and Pennypacker to the 

cell block by herself. 

27. In the cell block, Law performed another search of the bras and underwear of the 

Plaintiff and Pennypacker but again failed to find any contraband. Law then placed the Plaintiff 

and Pennypacker into a locked cell to await processing. 

28. When Defendant Martinez arrived at the precinct a few minutes later, Law 

informed him that the Plaintiff and Pennypacker had no warrants or contraband and asked if she 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 5 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 6 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 6 of 21 

could release them. Despite the fact that he was the supervising officer and had just been 

informed that there was no probable cause to continue holding the Plaintiffor Pennypacker, 

Defendant Martinez declined to order their release and responded by telling Law to wait for 

Oandasan. 

29. When Defendant Oandasan arrived at the precinct, Law informed him that the 

Plaintiff and Pennypacker had no warrants or contraband and asked ifshe could release them. 

Despite having been informed that there was no cause to continue holding them, Defendant 

Oandasan responded by telling Law to leave the Plaintiff and Pennypacker in their cell. 

30. Law complied with the orders of Defendants Martinez and Oandassan and left the 

precinct with Goodwin to resume their tour of duty. 

3 1. Some brief time thereafter, a lone unknown officer, Defendant John Doe, entered 

the cell block and sat down next to the Plaintiff on the other side of the bars to begin taking down 

information &om both the Plaintiffand Pennypacker. At one point during the night, Defendant 

John Doe also conducted a search of Pennypacker's personal bag. 

32. After Defendant John Doe fnished taking the Plaintiffs and Pennypacker's 

information, he asked them. ifthey wanted to "go home." When they responded by saying yes, 

Defendant John Doe asked them "why should I let you go?" Afier the Plaintiff responded that 

they had done nothing wrong, Defendant John Doe instructed them to kiss each other on the lips 

and fondle each others' breasts. When the Plaintiffobjected to the Defendant's instructions he 

told themhe would only let them go if they did as he had instructed. 

33. In an attempt to placate Defendant John Doe, the Plaintiff and Pennypacker gave 

each other a quick kiss. Unsatisfied, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff and Pennypacker 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 7 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 7 of 21 

tongue kiss and fondle each other more. 

34. In an attempt to coerce the two women, Defendant John Doe raised the keys to the 

cell and jingled them in a taunting manner. 

35. The Defendant John Doe also threatened the Plaintiff and Pennypacker by telling 

them that "if you scream I'U make up some charge to keep you both in here." 

36. Afraid that Defendant John Doe would phpically hurt her if she rehsed, the 

Plaintiffsubmitted to the Defendant's demands and allowed Pennpacker to touch her. 

37. At some point while the Plaintiffand Pennypacker were being Forced by 

Defendant John Doe to touch each other, another unknown officer looked into the holding area, 

observed what the women were being made to do, and then left without comment. 

38. After watching the Plaintiffand Pennypacker kiss and fondle each other for 

sometime, Defendant John Doe proceeded to demand that they perform oral sex on each other. 

At this point, the Plaintiffbecame extremely upset and began to cry uncontrollably. 

39. When Defendant John Doe demanded that the Plaintiff and Pennypacker continue 

kissing each other, they refused . Defendant John Doe continued to demand that the women 

continue kissing each other and asked Pennypacker if she was "getting off' on touching and 

kissing the Plainti& After Pennypacker again pleaded for them to be released, Defendant John 

Doe told them he would think about it. 

40. At approximately 9:00PM, afler having tormented them for 45 minutes, Defendant 

John Doe released the Plaintiffand Pennypacker. 

41. At no point did Defendant John Doe, or any other officer for that matter, ask the 

Plaintiff or Pennypacker a single question pertaining to their arrest or suspicion that they had 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 8 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 0111912006 Page 8 of 21 

committed a criminal offense. The Plaintiff and Pennypacker were never charged with or accused 

of having committed a criminal offense. 

42. Before leaving for their respective homes, the Plaintiff and Pennypacker conversed 

outside of the precinct and discovered that $20 and five public transit tokens were missing kom 

their bags. 

43. When the Plaintiffand Pennypacker attempted to re-enter the precinct to speak to 

someone about the incident which had just occurred, Defendant John Doe shouted at them to "get 

the fuck out ofhere before I put you back in the cell." 

44. Approximately forty five minutes after they left the precinct, Law and Goodwin 

returned for a bathroom break. While walking towards the Operations Room, Law passed 

Defendant Markowski who upon seeing her, remarked "you should have been here, you missed 

the show." 

45. Not understanding what Defendant Markowski was talking about, Law proceeded 

to the Operations Room where she came upon Defendant Cappas talking loudly and jokingly 

about how the Plaintiff and Pennypacker "were playing with themselves" and "fingering each 

other." 

46. Upon hearing this, Law became very upset and began to yell at Defendant Cappas 

and called him an "asshole" for allowing the things he was describing to happen. 

47. Law then walked over to Doreen Napper (Badgekt12 17) ("Napper"), the officer on 

turnkey duty that night, to discuss the incident with her. Napper shook her head and remarked 

"they wanted me to go back there." 

48. Law then left the Operations Room found Goodwin and left the precinct to 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 9 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 9 of 21 

resume their tour of duty. 

49. At the time Law walked in on Cappas talking and joking in the Operations Room 

about the assault on the Plaintiff and Pennypacker, Defendant Martinez, Sergeant Shawn Gushue 

(Badge#0283), Napper and officer Geneva O'Neal (Badge#52 12) were all present in the room. 

50. Defendant Martinez took no action upon hearing Defendant Cappas' account of 

what happened to the Plaintiff and Pennypacker in their cell. 

5 1. After being released, the Plaintiff left the 26Ih District precinct in a severe state of 

mental anguish and emotional distress. 

52. At approximately 1 IPM that night, the Plaintiff went to the 16Ih District Police 

Precinct to make a formal complaint and in her own handwriting described how she was 

assaulted. Sergeant Deanthonis Edwards (Badge#8761) fielded the Plaintiffs complaint and 

noticed how upset she was at the time. 

53. Two days after the assault detailed above, the Plaintiff's distress was still so 

severe that she was forced to check herself into a hospital to seek medical attention. 

54. The Plaintiff also endured severe anxiety as she feared Defendant John Doe would 

attempt to fmd and harm her. 

55. To date, the Plaintiff continues to suffer from severe emotional distress and mental 

anguish as a result of the unlawful detention and sexual misconduct she was forced to endure at 

the hands of the Defendants. 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 10 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 10 of 21 

COUNT I 

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 61983 

Plaintiff v. Defendants Martinez. Camas, Markowski. Livingstone and Oandasan 

56. Paragraphs 1 through 55 of this complaint are incorporated herein by reference as 

if set forth in their entirety 

57. On the evening of September 3,2003, the Plaintsand Pennypacker were stopped, 

searched, handcuffed and detained without probable cause by Defendants Martinez, Cappas, 

Markowski, Livingstone and Oandasan while traveling along the 2300 block of North Front 

Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

58. Said detention was initiated by Defendant Oandasan during a surveillance 

operation in which he had observed nothing more than Pennypacker speak to his surveillance 

target. At no point did Defendant Oandasan observe the Plaintiffor Pennypacker make any hand 

to hand excahnges with or purchase anything tom the surveillance target. 

59. At the time they were detained, the Plaintiff and Pennypacker had neither engaged 

in criminal activity nor taken any actions which would raise reasonable suspicion that criminal 

activity was afoot. 

60. During the stop, Defendants Martinez, Cappas, Markowski, Livingstone and 

Oandasan conducted a 6isk search of the Plaintiff and Pennypacker but failed to find any 

contraband 

61. After failing to uncover any contraband fiom the fiisk search of the Plaintiff and 

Pennypacker, Defendant Martinez called Law to the scene to conduct a more thorough search. 

62. Upon arriving at the scene, officer Law searched the bras and underwear of the 

Plaintiff and Pennypacker but she also failed to uncover any contraband. 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 11 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 11 of 21 

63. At no time did any of the Defendants secure or attempt to secure either an arrest 

or search warrant for the Plaintiffand Pennypacker. 

64. At no time did any officer develop probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff or 

Pennypacker. 

65. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff and Pennypacker had neither committed an illegal 

act nor been found to be in possession of contraband, nor been subject to an arrest or search 

warrant, Defendant Martinez, without probable cause for arrest, ordered that they be transported 

to the 26Ih District Police Precinct. 

66. Upon arrival at the 26Ih District precinct, Law escorted the Plaintiff and 

Pennypacker to the cell block and performed another search of the bras and underwear of the 

Plaintiff and Pennypacker but again failed to fmd any contraband. Law then placed the Plaintiff 

and Pennypacker into a locked cell to await processing. 

67. When Defendant Martinez arrived at the precinct a few minutes later, Law 

informed him that the Plaintiff and Pennypacker had no warrants or contraband and asked if she 

could release them. Despite the fact that he was the supervising officer and had just been 

informed that there was no probable cause to continue holding the Plaintiffor Pennypacker, 

Defendant Martinez declined to order them released and responded by telling Law to wait for 

Oandasan. 

68. When Defendant Oandasan arrived at the precinct, Law informed him that the 

Plaintiffand Pennypacker had no warrants or contraband and asked if she could release them. 

Despite having been informed that there was no cause to continue holding them, Defendant 

Oandasan responded by telling Law to leave the Plaintiff and Pennypacker in their cell thus 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 12 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 0111912006 Page 12 of 21 

continuing their unlawful detention. 

69. In arresting and detaining the Plaintiffwithout probable cause or an arrest warrant, 

Defendants Martinez, Cappas, Markowski, Livingstone and Oandasan deprived her of her right 

not to be arrested without probable cause or an arrest warrant. 

70. Based on the above, Defendants Martinez, Cappas, Markowski, Livingstone and 

Oandasan did blsely arrest the Plaintiff and violate her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights 

under the U.S. Constitution. 

71. As a direct result of being falsely arrested, the Plaintiffwas forced to suffer sexual 

assault and battery at the hands of Defendant John Doe, as described above. 

72. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress 

and mental anguish as a direct consequence of the sexual assault and battery she endured during 

her unlawful detainmnt. 

73. Having falsely arrested the Plaintiff, Defendants Martinez, Cappas, Markowski, 

Livingstone and Oandasan are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for her emotional distress 

and mental anguish. 

74. Based on the above, Defendants Martinez, Cappas, Markowski, Livingstone and 

Oandasan are also jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 

1983. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Erica Hejnar, claims compensatory and punitive damages in 

excess of the arbitration limit against the Defendants Martinez, Cappas, Markowski, 

Livingstone and Oandasan, jointly and severally. 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 13 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 0111 912006 Page 13 of 21 

COUNT 11 

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 6 1983 

Plaintiffv. Defendant John Doe 

75. Paragraphs I through 74 of this complaint are incorporated herein by reference as 

if set forth in their entirety. 

76. At all material times, Defendant John Doe, acted individually under the color of 

state law which accompanied his position as an officer with the City of Philadelphia Police 

Department. 

77. On September 3,2003, Defendants Martinez, Cappas, Markowski, 

Livingstone and Oandasan, acting individually under the color of state law, conducted a stop and 

frisk on the Plaintiff and Pennypacker without reasonable suspicion that a crime had been 

committed or that criminal activity was afoot. 

78. On September 3,2003, probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff and Pennypacker did 

not exist as they had neither committed a criminal offense nor been found to be in possession of 

contraband of any kind. 

79. At no time did any of the Defendants secure or attempt to secure an arrest or 

search warrant for the Plaintiff or Pennypacker. 

80. Notwithstanding the absence of probable cause to arrest and lack of an arrest 

warrant, the Plaintiff and Pemypacker were handcuffed and detained by Defendants Martinez, 

Cappas, Markowski, Livingstone and Oandasan, acting individually under the color of state law, 

and taken to the 26Ih District Police Precinct in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. 

81. As a result ofthe Plaintiffs and Pennypacker's arrest without probable cause, they 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 14 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 0111912006 Page 14 of 21 

were unlawfully detained and held against their will for several hours in the 26" District Police 

Precinct. 

82. While being unlawfully detained and held against their will, the Plaintiff and 

Pennypacker were forced to perform sexual acts against their will and sutier gross sexual 

misconduct and harassment at the hands of Defendant John Doe. 

83. At all material times, the Plaintiff had a Liberty interest, under the Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, in not being forced by the state to perform 

sexual acts against her will. 

84. On September 3, 2003, Defendant John Doe, by using his authority under the color 

of state law to force the Plaintiff to perform sexual acts against her will, did deprive the Plaintiff 

of her aforementioned liberty interest in violation of her rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments. 

85. As a result ofher unlawful detainment and the outrageous sexual misconduct of 

Defendant John Doe, the Plaintiffhas sutiered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress 

and mental anguish. 

86. Based on the above, Defendant John Doe is liable to the Plaintiff for violating her 

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. 

87. Based on the above, Defendant John Doe is liable to the Plaintiff for damages 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1983. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Erica Hejnar, claims compensatory and punitive damages in 

excess of the arbitration limit against Defendant John Doe. 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 15 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-93 Document 14 Filed 0111912006 Page 15 of 21 

COUNT 111 

ASSAULT 

Plaintiff v. Defendant John Doe 

88. Paragraphs 1 through 87 of this complaint are incorporated herein by reference as 

if set forth in their entirety. 

89. On September 3, 2003, Defendant John Doe, unaccompanied, entered the 

cell block at the 26Ih District Police Precinct where the Plaintiff and Pennypacker were being 

unlawfully detained in a locked cell. 

90. Once bside the cell bIock, Defendant John Doe threatened the Plaintiff and 

Pennypacker with continued unlawful detainment unless they met his sexual demands by kissing 

and fondling each other in an offensive manner. 

91. Defendant John Doe possessed the full capability to carry out his threat and 

continue the unlawful detainment of the Plaintiffand Pennypacker. 

92. In addition to fearing continued unlawful detainment, the Plaintiff feared that 

Defendant John Doe would attempt to physically injure her if she did not meet his demands. 

93. Thus, Defendant John Doe's threats and overall conduct placed the Plaintiffin an 

imminent apprehension of offensive bodily contact. 

94. Based on the above, Defendant John Doe is liable to the Plaintiff for the tort of 

assault. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Erica Hejnar, claims con~pensatory and punitive damages in 

excess of the arbitration limit against Defendant John Doe. 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 16 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 16 of 21 

Plaintiff v. Defendant John Doe 

95. Paragraphs 1 through 94 of this complaint are incorporated herein by reference as 

if set forth in their entirety. 

96. On September 3, 2003, Defendant John Doe, unaccompanied, entered the 

cell block at the 26Ih District Police Precinct where the Plaintiff and Pennypacker were being 

unlawfully detained in a locked cell. 

97. Once inside the cell block, Defendant John Doe threatened the Plaintiff and 

Pennypacker with continued unlawful detainment unless they met his sexual demands by kissing 

and fondling each other in an offensive manner. 

98. As she was physically secluded with Defendant John Doe and being unlawfully 

detained in a locked cell, the Plaintiffwas placed in a state of fear by the defendant's wanton 

demands and threats. 

99. Due to her fear of Defendant John Doe. the Plaintiff was forced to submit to his 

demands and allow Pennypacker to touch her in a sexually offensive manner. 

100. Thus, Defendant John Doe did directly cause the Plaintiff to suffer offensive 

touching and contact. 

101. Based on the above, Defendant John Doe is liable to the Plaintiff for the tort of 

battery. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Erica Hejnar, claims compensatory and punitive damages in 

excess of the arbitration limit against Defendant John Doe. 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 17 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 17 of 21 

COUNT V 

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 

Plaintiff v. Defendant John Doe 

102. Paragraphs I through 101 of this complaint are incorporated herein by reference as 

if set forth in their entirety. 

103. On September 3,2003, Defendant John Doe, unaccompanied, entered the 

cell block at the 26Ih District Police Precinct where the Plaintiff and Pennypacker were being 

unlawfully detained in a locked cell. 

104. Once inside the cell block, Defendant John Doe threatened the Plaintiff and 

Pennypacker with continued unlawful detainment unless they met his sexual demands by kissing 

and fondling each other in an offensive manner. 

105. As she was physically secluded with Defendant John Doe and being unlawfully 

detained in a locked cell, the Plaintiffwas placed in a state of fear by the defendant's wanton 

demands and threats. 

106. Due to her fear of Defendant John Doe, the Plaintiff was forced to submit to his 

demands and allow Pennypacker to touch her in a sexually offensive manner. 

107. As a result of Defendnat John Doe's intentional and reckiess conduct, the Plaintiff 

was forced to undergo hospitalization and has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional 

distress. 

108. Defendant John Doe's conduct was extreme and outrageous. 

109. Based on the above, Defendant John Doe is liable to the Plaintiff for the tort of 

intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Erica Hejnar, claims compensatory and punitive damages in 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 18 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 18 of 21 

excess of the arbitration limit against Defendant John Doe 

COUNT V1 

VlOLATlON OF 42 U.S.C. 61983 

Plaintiff v. City of Philadelphia 

1 10. Paragraphs 1 through 109 of this complaint are incorporated herein by reference as 

if set forth in their entirety. 

11 1. At all material times, the City ofPhiladelphia has maintained a policy and or 

practice of allowing its police officers to arrest people absent an arrest warrant and or the 

existence of probable cause. 

112. At all material times, the City ofPhiladelphia has maintained a policy and or 

practice of allowing its police officers to sexually harass and assault persons in custody 

113. As a direct result of these policies and practices, Defendants Martinez, Cappas, 

Markowski, Livingstone, Oandasan and John Doe were able to violate the Plaintiffs rights under 

the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by falsely arresting and 

sexually assaulting her without fear of repercussion on the night of Septen~kr 3,2003. 

114. Based on the above, defendant City of Philadelphia is liable to the Plaintiff for the 

injuries inflicted upon her by the Defendant police officers and damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 

1983. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Eric Hejnar claims compensatory and punitive damages in 

excess of the arbitration limit against the City of Philadelphia. 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 19 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 19 of 21 

BY: 

MARK S. KEENHEEL, ESQUIRE 

MUSA R. KEENHEEL, ESQUIRE 

59 MAPLEWOOD MALL 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19144 

(215) 848-0361 

ATT. I.D. # 41207 

ATT. 1.D. # 89712 

AlTORNEYS FOR ERICA HEJNAR 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 20 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 20 of 21 

RJ THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ERICA HEJNAR 

Plaintiff, ClVlL ACTION 

NO. 05-1565 

v. 

OSCAR MARTINEZ (Badge #8857), 

NORBERT0 CAPPAS (Badge#1287), 

EDWARD MARKOWSKI @adgeft6917), : 

JOHN LIVINGSONE (Badge#2596), 

JAN 2 3 2006 

MIC~>,%~!L t. ?." ,,L, ....., 

MY- ----. I./ 

TODD OANDASAN (Badge# 2774), 

JOHN DOE OFFICER, 

and 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 

Defendants. : 

CERTlFICATE OF SERVICE 

1, Musa R. Keenheel Esquue, counscl for the Plaintiffin the above-captioned matter, 

hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above captioned Complaint was served upon the 

following by certified mailon January 19,2006: 

Michele L. Dean, Esquke 

Civil Rights Unit 

City of Philadelphia Law Department 

One Parkway 

15 15 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, FA 19102-1595 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 21 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 14 Filed 01119/2006 Page 21 of 21 

MARK S. KEENHEEL, ESQUIRE 

MUSA R. KEENHEEL, ESQUIRE 

59 MAPLEWOOD MALL 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19 144 

(215) 848-0361 

ATT. LD. # 41207 

ATT. I.D. # 89712 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Erica Hejnar 

Case 2:05-cv-01565-SD Document 16 Filed 01/23/06 Page 22 of 22